UK Police Arrest Protesters Chanting ‘Globalise the Intifada’ as Authorities Recalibrate Free Speech Enforcement
Metropolitan and Greater Manchester Police take action against inflammatory slogans amid rising antisemitism and heightened public order concerns
British police forces in London and Manchester have begun arresting demonstrators for chanting slogans calling for ‘intifada’ at pro-Palestinian protests as authorities adopt a stricter enforcement stance on public order offences in the wake of recent antisemitic violence.
On 17 December 2025, officers from both the Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police detained individuals at a demonstration outside the UK’s Ministry of Justice in Westminster after they shouted phrases linked to calls for an intifada, a word derived from Arabic meaning ‘‘uprising’’ that has become politically charged in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The arrests mark a calibrated shift in law enforcement policy, with police leaders stating that the ‘‘context has changed’’ following a series of deadly attacks against Jewish communities, including the mass shooting at Bondi Beach in Sydney and a synagogue attack in Manchester earlier this year.
In a joint statement, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley and Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Sir Stephen Watson said that placards and chants perceived to incite hatred or intimidate Jewish communities would now prompt decisive action.
They emphasised that ‘‘words and chants used, especially in protests, matter and have real world consequences’’ and warned that frontline officers have been briefed on the enhanced approach, including powers under the Public Order Act to impose conditions during demonstrations.
Community leaders representing British Jews, including the Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis, welcomed the move as ‘‘an important step towards challenging the hateful rhetoric’’ seen at some protests.
The arrests drew criticism from free speech and civil liberties advocates, who argue the policy could unduly restrict legitimate political expression.
Activists affiliated with pro-Palestinian groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign have described the crackdown as ‘‘political repression of protest for Palestinian rights,’’ asserting that the slogan reflects opposition to occupation rather than incitement to violence.
They contend that applying criminal sanctions to certain language risks curbing fundamental democratic rights to protest and speech.
Some legal experts note that previous hesitancy to pursue charges stemmed from thresholds for prosecution under existing hate crime laws, and that courts may ultimately have to determine whether the use of such chants in context amounts to criminal conduct.
The debate in Britain illustrates broader tensions between protecting communities from intimidation and preserving civil liberties.
As authorities navigate rising antisemitism and shifting social dynamics, the enforcement of public order and hate speech laws continues to evolve, with implications for future protests and the balance between security and expression in public life.
On 17 December 2025, officers from both the Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police detained individuals at a demonstration outside the UK’s Ministry of Justice in Westminster after they shouted phrases linked to calls for an intifada, a word derived from Arabic meaning ‘‘uprising’’ that has become politically charged in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The arrests mark a calibrated shift in law enforcement policy, with police leaders stating that the ‘‘context has changed’’ following a series of deadly attacks against Jewish communities, including the mass shooting at Bondi Beach in Sydney and a synagogue attack in Manchester earlier this year.
In a joint statement, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley and Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Sir Stephen Watson said that placards and chants perceived to incite hatred or intimidate Jewish communities would now prompt decisive action.
They emphasised that ‘‘words and chants used, especially in protests, matter and have real world consequences’’ and warned that frontline officers have been briefed on the enhanced approach, including powers under the Public Order Act to impose conditions during demonstrations.
Community leaders representing British Jews, including the Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis, welcomed the move as ‘‘an important step towards challenging the hateful rhetoric’’ seen at some protests.
The arrests drew criticism from free speech and civil liberties advocates, who argue the policy could unduly restrict legitimate political expression.
Activists affiliated with pro-Palestinian groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign have described the crackdown as ‘‘political repression of protest for Palestinian rights,’’ asserting that the slogan reflects opposition to occupation rather than incitement to violence.
They contend that applying criminal sanctions to certain language risks curbing fundamental democratic rights to protest and speech.
Some legal experts note that previous hesitancy to pursue charges stemmed from thresholds for prosecution under existing hate crime laws, and that courts may ultimately have to determine whether the use of such chants in context amounts to criminal conduct.
The debate in Britain illustrates broader tensions between protecting communities from intimidation and preserving civil liberties.
As authorities navigate rising antisemitism and shifting social dynamics, the enforcement of public order and hate speech laws continues to evolve, with implications for future protests and the balance between security and expression in public life.
